Putting the lie to "quit spending money we don't have"

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Chop the Defense Budget by ONE THIRD (that's 1/3 for the guy who gets all hung up on how to spell words), the pull out of our two wars, mothball a Naval Task force or two, and close a host of military bases around the World.

All of the countries who have been letting the USA defend them, but who now are having us for lunch in terms of our balance of payments.

Watch the TEA PARTY do an about face then!

It's not hard to figure out that "quit spending money we don't have" is the new euphanism for quitting spending money on various needs throughout our society.

Light Rail? "That's what my BMW id for!"

Obamacare? "Hey, I'm not sick!"

Education? "My kid got into Harvard, no prob!"

Moby Nick

[jacketch]

Chop the entire budget by 1/3.

I'm all for it.

http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/

[elf]

Nick, I expected better from you. Surely you understand that chopping the military expenditures of our government means putting a very large number of people out of work.

While it is true that finding non-military work for all those people would be vastly better than what we're doing now, it's not going to happen.

So if we chop the portion of the Federal budget that goes to various defensive and agressive activities, either we leave those people unemployed or we increase the budget for unemployment insurance.

It's a zero sum game. There are no quick solutions, there are no easy solutions, we've wasted 26 years pretending that we don't need solutions which would create alternative industries to defense.

And now it's too late.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Nick, I expected better from you. Surely you understand that chopping the military expenditures of our government means putting a very large number of people out of work.

While it is true that finding non-military work for all those people would be vastly better than what we're doing now, it's not going to happen.

So if we chop the portion of the Federal budget that goes to various defensive and agressive activities, either we leave those people unemployed or we increase the budget for unemployment insurance.

It's a zero sum game. There are no quick solutions, there are no easy solutions, we've wasted 26 years pretending that we don't need solutions which would create alternative industries to defense.

And now it's too late.


This is a classic argument when it comes to defense spending, but it isn't entirely true. Some of the money we're talking about here get recycled into other areas that need it, perhaps infrastructure, education etc. The other part is that the money that is saved reduces debt, which strengthens the overall economy over the long term. Yes, there is some short term pain, but it isn't the picture most defense department propopents put forward. The reason America doesn't cut defense is fear and pride.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

We shall see if those Teabaggers are willing to see federal establishments in their home states be closed. If I was Pres. Obama I would personally threaten every stinkin' federal, operation in every stinkin' RED state. First would be TEXAS. They have had a death grip on the federal tit since WWII at least.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Unemployment is no excuse for extending our two wars, and their attendant cost.

As for drawing dow our committment to too many military bases? Phase it gradually over 5 years. There would very likely be colateral benefits for our international relations were we to pull back from being the World's biggest bully.

I'm not the only one calling the Tea Party's buzz words for what they are; just heard it on a Sunday Morning TV Talk Panel moments after I composed my post. Those TV Panel Guests are all considered "experts".

Moby Nick

[rbgarr]

We've been in Germany for 65 years, Korea for 60. Any takers on whether we'll be in Iraq for at least as long?

[oznabrag]

We've been in Germany for 65 years, Korea for 60. Any takers on whether we'll be in Iraq for at least as long?

No way.

Osama is winning the WOT. Some would say he's already won. We've done everything he said we'd do, and 60 years from now there won't be enough left of us to bury.

[Jim Mahan]

I agree with Nick. Build more schools and more hospitals. Build until we have a surplus of those instead of a chronic shortage. Let's make it economically viable to own and operate a family farm again. Let's educate and heal our population like we should have been doing all along, like the rich country we're touted to be. Let's actually fund more things for our society and make things better for all of us instead of a few. We, the world, mankind, have plenty of worthwhile things to spend our wealth on instead of making war. And yeah, it is our wealth, just as it is our world and our responsibility. It is egregious and immoral to continue to believe otherwise. If we did what we can do, and did it as well as we might, we could permanently solve all sorts of things—worldwide—that, as they continue, condemn us as heathen, barbarian brutes. We should be ashamed to call ourselves civilized while the status quo continues in lieu of our realizing our potential.
If we actually did those things mentioned above, we'd have chronic surpluses instead of deficits and debt. Then we really would be wealthy. And then we could be proud of ourselves, all of us.
To quote a statesman from an earlier time, "I like paying taxes; with them I buy civilization."

[S.V. Airlie]

This is a classic argument when it comes to defense spending, but it isn't entirely true. Some of the money we're talking about here get recycled into other areas that need it, perhaps infrastructure, education etc. The other part is that the money that is saved reduces debt, which strengthens the overall economy over the long term. Yes, there is some short term pain, but it isn't the picture most defense department propopents put forward. The reason America doesn't cut defense is fear and pride.

Peter it is not classic..it is mantra....

[downthecreek]

All of the countries who have been letting the USA defend them, but who now are having us for lunch in terms of our balance of payments.


I've mentioned this book before, but I suggest you have a look at "The Political Economics of US Militarism" by Hossein-Zadeh (Professor of Economics at Duke University) This is a very interesting and extremely thoroughly researched and referenced book that may help to dispel the myth that the US maintains its military industrial complex, complete with, perhaps, a thousand overseas bases, for any reason other than self interest. (This is not surprising. Nations always do act out of self interest, of course, including the USA)

Nobody is "having you for lunch" except, perhaps, the mighty corporations whose interests dominate your politics.

[JimD]

...All of the countries who have been letting the USA defend them...

Must we hear this again? The USA defends American interests. If you want to scale back your military then redefine your interests.

[Gerarddm]

Unemployment is no excuse for extending our two wars, and their attendant cost.

Ain't that the truth. Certain segments of society rail against subsidies and bailouts. The US military empire is the world's largest subsidy. If we put a chunk of Defense $$ into, say, alternative energy infrastructure and the like, we'd be better off, and so would the world. Producing a tank ends with the tank; producing a solar panel factory produces eternal energy and jobs. You do the math.


If you want to scale back your military then redefine your interests.

An argument Ron Paul could make when he discusses the military empire. A point of his that I think bears some rational scrutiny.

[bobbys]

We shall see if those Teabaggers are willing to see federal establishments in their home states be closed. If I was Pres. Obama I would personally threaten every stinkin' federal, operation in every stinkin' RED state. First would be TEXAS. They have had a death grip on the federal tit since WWII at least..

You would base a economic policy on imagined sexual acts and revenge?

[bobbys]

Chop the Defense Budget by ONE THIRD (that's 1/3 for the guy who gets all hung up on how to spell words), the pull out of our two wars, mothball a Naval Task force or two, and close a host of military bases around the World.

All of the countries who have been letting the USA defend them, but who now are having us for lunch in terms of our balance of payments.

Watch the TEA PARTY do an about face then!

It's not hard to figure out that "quit spending money we don't have" is the new euphanism for quitting spending money on various needs throughout our society.

Light Rail? "That's what my BMW id for!"

Obamacare? "Hey, I'm not sick!"

Education? "My kid got into Harvard, no prob!"

Moby Nick.

Last year we were ignorant rednecks driving trucks, now we are driving beemers going to Harvey skools!.

I like it !!

[Bob Adams]

We shall see if those Teabaggers are willing to see federal establishments in their home states be closed. If I was Pres. Obama I would personally threaten every stinkin' federal, operation in every stinkin' RED state. First would be TEXAS. They have had a death grip on the federal tit since WWII at least.

Why do you keep refering to perverted sexual acts, lookin to come out of the closet Chuck?;)

Anyway, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with ELF on this one.

[BrianW]

We shall see if those Teabaggers are willing to see federal establishments in their home states be closed. If I was Pres. Obama I would personally threaten every stinkin' federal, operation in every stinkin' RED state. First would be TEXAS. They have had a death grip on the federal tit since WWII at least.

Such hate.

Kind of a "not in my backyard" attitude as well.

The truth of the matter is all politicians protect their States interests.

[BETTY-B]

There's far too many super duper rich people making literally tons of money on this whole defense thing. We cant simply take those entitlements away from them. Where would our yellow rain come from then?

[McMike]

Such hate.

Kind of a "not in my backyard" attitude as well.

The truth of the matter is all politicians protect their States interests.

Do you think we spend too much money on "defense"?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Why do you keep refering to perverted sexual acts, lookin to come out of the closet Chuck?;)

Anyway, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with ELF on this one.

If you read my stuff you'll see I have a more than an adequate English vocabulary. Nonetheless, I don't know what in hell you are talking about. Why not do your self a favor and burn your keyboard. It only makes you look small.

[BrianW]

If you read my stuff you'll see I have a more than an adequate English vocabulary. Nonetheless, I don't know what in hell you are talking about. Why not do your self a favor and burn your keyboard. It only makes you look small.


More hate from Ohio.

[BrianW]

Do you think we spend too much money on "defense"?

I'm sure there's lots of room to save money in the DOD.

[Captain Blight]

Awesome, let's start by firing all the mercenaries.

[oznabrag]

Awesome, let's start by firing all the mercenaries.

I remember reading somewhere that firing 600 CIA operatives suspected of abusing their positions was what killed Jimmy Carter's Presidency.

Makes sense.

[johnwill]

We shall see if those Teabaggers are willing to see federal establishments in their home states be closed. If I was Pres. Obama I would personally threaten every stinkin' federal, operation in every stinkin' RED state. First would be TEXAS. They have had a death grip on the federal tit since WWII at least.

Totally false. If you had bothered to do a little research, you would have found Texas ranks 35th among all the states in the amount of federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid. The latest data I could find (2005) shows Texas at 94% return, while Ohio, ranked 31st, received a 105% return.

:p

[Pugwash]

http://i.imgur.com/L84kQ.png

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Such hate.

Kind of a "not in my backyard" attitude as well.

The truth of the matter is all politicians protect their States interests.

Well, Brian, the politicians that want to cut the US budget by 1/3 are not in office yet. But their path to public office involved a lot of well reported yammering about how they vowed to do it if elected. Up to this point that approach has payed off handsomely. They will shortly get to take the oath. What then?
One of them is a former Army general. His state, Florida, is loaded with military and other federal goodies. Cape Canaveral going to be given over to Mickey Mouse? Naval and Air Force bases in the panhandle going to be returned to the pelicans? I doubt it.
We went thru' a spell like this after the Vietnam War. The process went on forever and the RED states made sure that what looked like a base closing was not really a base closing. Most of what went were reserve and national guard bases. But that stuff is gone. what now?

[paul oman]

shutting down this forum would save WoodenBoat both time and money.....

obama has pretty much shown how much he loves war and killing muslim women and children with drone missiles and more and more troops overseas... How about we shut down Obama?

[johnwill]

Cuyahoga Chuck,

And Florida is ranked 34th with a 97% return.

Sounds like you've got Sunbelt envy to me.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Hey Puggy!
The map is very colorful and truely reports some of the facts. For instance, Michigan receives about the same payback as Texas. What your map doesn't tell us is that Michigan is an economic basket case and in need of an economic uplift while Texas is strong and getting stronger. Why shouldn't Texas be asked to come up with some largess? That NASA headquarters in Houston would work just as well in Michigan. And it would be removed from the danger of being flooded by Buffalo Bayeau. Plenty of room for an army base on the Upper Peninsula. A lot of fresh air up there and no scorpians.

[Captain Blight]

What is with the 'drone missile' (two different things BTW) argument? What's wrong with that?

[Pugwash]

Hey Puggy!
The map is very colorful and truely reports some of the facts. For instance, Michigan receives about the same payback as Texas. What your map doesn't tell us is that Michigan is an economic basket case and in need of an economic uplift while Texas is strong and getting stronger. Why shouldn't Texas be asked to come up with some largess? That NASA headquarters in Houston would work just as well in Michigan. And it would be removed from the danger of being flooded by Buffalo Bayeau. Plenty of room for an army base on the Upper Peninsula. A lot of fresh air up there and no scorpians.

I only use that map because it gives a good visual impression, rather than just a list of numbers.

It is slightly misleading as it stops at 150%, while there are 13 States over that amount, with DC (I know) coming in at over 200%. But that one's not really surprising.

[BrianW]

Awesome, let's start by firing all the mercenaries.

Then as far as I can tell, you'd save $0.00.

Good plan.

[BrianW]

Well, Brian, the politicians that want to cut the US budget by 1/3 are not in office yet.

Then lets wait and see what happens.


But their path to public office involved a lot of well reported yammering about how they vowed to do it if elected. Up to this point that approach has payed off handsomely. They will shortly get to take the oath. What then?

Exactly. This happens to some extent every 2 years. What's the big deal?



One of them is a former Army general. His state, Florida, is loaded with military and other federal goodies. Cape Canaveral going to be given over to Mickey Mouse?

NASA is taking a huge hit with the ending of the Space Shuttle program right now.


Naval and Air Force bases in the panhandle going to be returned to the pelicans? I doubt it.

Me too.


We went thru' a spell like this after the Vietnam War. The process went on forever and the RED states made sure that what looked like a base closing was not really a base closing.

Really? Just red states were successful in stopping BRAC?

[genglandoh]

Re: Real and Imaginary Conspiracies
I download and graphed the US Budget deficit for 1980 to 2010.
In just 3 short years the deficit increased almost 10 times.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5316986669_a68cce99a3_z.jpg

Data source is the White House Web site
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Download Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits

[bobbys]

Is this really our Chuck here today?

[elf]

OK. So are we talking about reducing the expenditures of the Federal Government, or are we talking about spending the money a different way? I thought Nick was basically talking about reducing Federal expenditure. Some of you seem to thing he was talking about spending that money in a different way.

Which is it?

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Yrs I was posting about cutting spending, but more specifically HOW we cut spending. I believe the Tea Party uses "quit spending money we don't have" as a euphanism for cutting "socialistic" benefit spending. The Tea Party has no interest in cutting the Defense Budget, because the Tea Party includes those people who would rather "fight them over there, than fight them here".

And as for "Harvard" and "rednecks, that McDonald woman from New Jersey ain't no redneck. She's one of those trangle sandwich babes posessing about as much sense as Palin, which is why I find them such an interesting pair; the triangle sandwich babe and the fillet of salmon on a slab of sourdough (female).

Moby Nick

[genglandoh]

The budget deficit has increase over the past 3 years by 10 time (-160 Billion to -1,555 Billion).
I do not think the democratic Congress increased Defense Spending.

I want the the Federal Government to just go back 3 years in their spending.

[bobbys]

Yrs I was posting about cutting spending, but more specifically HOW we cut spending. I believe the Tea Party uses "quit spending money we don't have" as a euphanism for cutting "socialistic" benefit spending. The Tea Party has no interest in cutting the Defense Budget, because the Tea Party includes those people who would rather "fight them over there, than fight them here".

And as for "Harvard" and "rednecks, that McDonald woman from New Jersey ain't no redneck. She's one of those trangle sandwich babes posessing about as much sense as Palin, which is why I find them such an interesting pair; the triangle sandwich babe and the fillet of salmon on a slab of sourdough (female).

Moby Nick.

Interesting how you reduce woman you do not agree with to food items of which makes no sense by the way.

When can we start taking you seriously?

[Captain Blight]

Then as far as I can tell, you'd save $0.00.

Good plan.
Don't be dense.

[Captain Blight]

.

Interesting how you reduce woman you do not agree with to food items of which makes no sense by the way.

When can we start taking you seriously?It makes perfect sense to me, but then I'm smarter than a turnip. When can we look forward to you not living in fear of things you don't understand?

[Keith Wilson]

The budget deficit has increase over the past 3 years by 10 time (-160 Billion to -1,555 Billion).
I do not think the democratic Congress increased Defense Spending.

I want the the Federal Government to just go back 3 years in their spending.The deficit is the difference between revenue and expenditures. The majority of the increase in the deficit is because of the drop in tax revenue due to the recession. The second-largest factor is tax cuts. (Yes, tax cuts)

[elf]

Of course, Keith, that requires a basic understanding of recent history and economics on the part of genglandoh.

[bobbys]

It makes perfect sense to me, but then I'm smarter than a turnip. When can we look forward to you not living in fear of things you don't understand?.

Well your a Mensa guy so please splane it to me..

>the triangle sandwich babe and the fillet of salmon on a slab of sourdough (female).<

[BrianW]

The deficit is the difference between revenue and expenditures. The majority of the increase in the deficit is because of the drop in tax revenue due to the recession. The second-largest factor is tax cuts. (Yes, tax cuts)

So it's not so much the huge defense industry? That kinda sucks, as it is a major topic of discussion here.

[BrianW]

Don't be dense.

Sorry. Any reply to your suggestion was going to sound dense.

Caused more by the ideal put forth than the actual reply.

[Donn]

The majority of the increase in the deficit is because of the drop in tax revenue due to the recession. The second-largest factor is tax cuts. (Yes, tax cuts)

Got a chart to illustrate this?

[genglandoh]

The deficit is the difference between revenue and expenditures. The majority of the increase in the deficit is because of the drop in tax revenue due to the recession. The second-largest factor is tax cuts. (Yes, tax cuts)

The number are (In millions)
*****Revenue*******Spending
2007**2,568,001*****2,728,702
2008**2,523,999*****2,982,554
2009**2,104,995*****3,517,681
2010**2,165,119*****3,720,701

Revenue dropped by $-402 Billion and spending increased $991 Billion
Or as a percentage revenue dropped by -15% and spending increased by 36%

So if we went back to 2007 spend levels with todays revenue the numbers would be.
Revenue****Spending****Deficit
2,165,119***2,728,702****-745,129 ($-745 Billion)

$-745 Billion is still big but better then the $-1,555 Billion

[Captain Blight]

Sorry. Any reply to your suggestion was going to sound dense.

Particularly coming from... a mercenary.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Exactly. This happens to some extent every 2 years. What's the big deal??


You must be new here. Nobody, but nobody, was ever dumb enough to promise to cut the federal budget by a third, a quarter or even a tenth. Now we got about 40 people that are party to that proposition. They had better have a good song and a dance.




NASA is taking a huge hit with the ending of the Space Shuttle program right now.?



You missed the point as usual. It's involves making those states that are trying to choke the US Treasury be the first to suffer when the money runs out. Move their installations elsewhere.



Really? Just red states were successful in stopping BRAC?


They had the most bases before and they still do today. And most of the noise about straving the administration comes from REDS. If you wanna' play you gotta' pay.

[Donn]

Particularly coming from... a mercenary.

Do you have a paying job, Blight? If so, you're as much a mercenary as Brian.

[BrianW]

Particularly coming from... a mercenary.

So you weren't really making a point, just trying to be insulting. That explains why it didn't make sense.

Please find and post here any contract for civilians conducting combat operations in the interest of the USA.

[leikec]

Particularly coming from... a mercenary.


That was a major league cheap shot, Blighty.

Jeff C

[BrianW]

You must be new here. Nobody, but nobody, was ever dumb enough to promise to cut the federal budget by a third, a quarter or even a tenth. Now we got about 40 people that are party to that proposition. They had better have a good song and a dance.

Looking a Wiki, I don't see that degree of cost cutting listed...


The "Contract from America" was the idea of Houston-based lawyer, Ryan Hecker. He stated that he developed the concept of creating a grassroots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots) call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies. To get his idea off the ground, he launched a website, ContractFromAmerica.com, which encouraged people to offer possible planks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_platform) for the contract.


Identify constitutionality of every new law
Reject emissions trading
Demand a balanced federal budget
Simplify the tax system
Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality
Limit annual growth in federal spending
Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
Reduce Earmarks
Reduce Taxes

I'm not interested in searching much more than that. Maybe you'd care to link us to the site which backs up your claims.








You missed the point as usual. It's involves making those states that are trying to choke the US Treasury be the first to suffer when the money runs out. Move their installations elsewhere.

I didn't miss you point. You want to punish people you don't like. I was making actual statements, not angry rhetoric.






They had the most bases before and they still do today. And most of the noise about straving the administration comes from REDS. If you wanna' play you gotta' pay.

Still no data? If they had the most before, and BRAC was evenly applied, they'd still have the most now. Where's the conspiracy?

[genglandoh]

I did a little more looking and defense spend is the following

2007 551 Billion
2010 719 Billion
Increase of 168 Billion

again the total increase in spending was 991 Billion
So most of the spending was not because of the defense budget.

Source of the data
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2015

[Pugwash]

I did a little more looking and defense spend is the following

2007 551 Billion
2010 719 Billion
Increase of 168 Billion

again the total increase in spending was 991 Billion
So most of the spending was not because of the defense budget.

Source of the data
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2015

Except......

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter.sargent/public.www/web%20104/defense%20country-distribution-2008.png

[pefjr]

Chop the Defense Budget by ONE THIRD the pull out of our two wars, mothball a Naval Task force or two, and close a host of military bases around the World.This can actually be accomplished with no unemployment increase. In fact unemployment would decrease if our gov't would take responsibility to put people back to work. DOD wastes more than 50% of every dollar in their budget.

[genglandoh]

Except......

http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/walter.sargent/public.www/web%20104/defense%20country-distribution-2008.png

Thanks that is a very interesting chart.
It has 2008 at $711 Billion
The White House number is $616 Billion
But they are both in the same ballpark.

I am surprised about the number for China.
Do you have the link?

I am not saying the we are at the correct level in Defense spending.
I am just pointing out where the increase in the budget deficit is coming from.

This way we can have a decision knowing the facts.

[bobbys]

Particularly coming from... a mercenary..

I don't think you would make a pimple on Brian's buttocks.

Hey don't feel bad i might not either...

[Donn]

That was a major league cheap shot, Blighty.

Jeff C

It was below cheap..it was a lie. For someone who trumpets his mastery of words, he apparently doesn't know the meaning of the word 'mercenary.'

[Pugwash]

Do you have the link?.

I looked in images for "Global Military Spending by Comparison", that one had the most information and happened to be a decent size.

[genglandoh]

I looked in images for "Global Military Spending by Comparison", that one had the most information and happened to be a decent size.

No problem I will do some research.

Thanks for posting the chart

[oznabrag]

This can actually be accomplished with no unemployment increase. In fact unemployment would decrease if our gov't would take responsibility to put people back to work. DOD wastes more than 50% of every dollar in their budget.

Sooooo... The gummint is responsible for putting people back to work?

I thought you RWWs were all about free enterprise!

When the government interferes with laissez-faire capitalism, they're a bunch of filthy communists, and when they don't, they're not doing their job.

Ura Nidiot.

[elf]

Sooooo... The gummint is responsible for putting people back to work?

I thought you RWWs were all about free enterprise!

When the government interferes with laissez-faire capitalism, they're a bunch of filthy communists, and when they don't, they're not doing their job.

Ura Nidiot.

Amazing how they don't hear themselves.

[BrianW]

Amazing how they don't hear themselves.


Kinda like the deficit is caused by defense spending, except for the fact it's not?

[leikec]

Kinda like the deficit is caused by defense spending, except for the fact it's not?


Defense spending doesn't "cause" the deficit--but defense spending swallows up a huge amount of tax revenue...and some of that could be re-allocated to paying down the deficit. Why wouldn't defense spending be targeted like any other federal appropriation when we discuss balancing the budget?

Every appropriation is a sacred cow to someone....

Jeff C

[BrianW]

Defense spending doesn't "cause" the deficit--but defense spending swallows up a huge amount of tax revenue...and some of that could be re-allocated to paying down the deficit. Why wouldn't defense spending be targeted like any other federal appropriation when we discuss balancing the budget?

Every appropriation is a sacred cow to someone....

Jeff C

You are, of course, correct.

[bobbys]

Sooooo... The gummint is responsible for putting people back to work?

I thought you RWWs were all about free enterprise!

When the government interferes with laissez-faire capitalism, they're a bunch of filthy communists, and when they don't, they're not doing their job.

Ura Nidiot..

I suppose the irony escaped you in the OP when the Poster Wants us to support President Obama in his war but then blames us if he thinks we want to cut his Military...

Lets break it down.

Bush Iraq war bad..

Right wing bad,.

Obama says Iraq war bad.

Right wing bad.

War over.

Obama wins war.

Wins over bad right wing

Obama says Afghanistan war Good.

He has to be there cause of Bush.

Right wing bad.

Receives Pizza prize to embarrass bad right wing..

Bad right wing..

Things go well Obama good.

Things lookie bad .bad right wing

>>Chop the Defense Budget by ONE THIRD (that's 1/3 for the guy who gets all hung up on how to spell words), the pull out of our two wars, mothball a Naval Task force or two, and close a host of military bases around the World.

All of the countries who have been letting the USA defend them, but who now are having us for lunch in terms of our balance of payments.

Watch the TEA PARTY do an about face then!<<<.

Opps need to save money , Bad right wing.

Tea Party about faceLOL




.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

The pie Chart posted a couple of time above supports my case admirably. It's the sort of thing a world-calss bully from the Country indicated in blue would like were he or she to sit alone in their room and comtemplate the sheer obscene ostentation represented by the blue-colored pie slice.

Moby Nick

[Tylerdurden]

Posted on another thread, food for thought.


I cannot argue the finer points of plans and healthcare and such because I know that sometime in the next decade if this merry go round keeps turning our debt service will exceed our defense spending.

Just think about that one for a moment........

Our Debt service will exceed defense spending.

Some say it will be within two years as QE2 will fail by late this year and QE3 will have to come about.

It's like two homeless guys talking about buying a Ferrari.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Re Healthcare: Consider for a moment how countries showing a LOT less GNP than the USA, but also spending WAY less on their military, seem to afford better heath care for everybody than we enjoy in the USA. Consider that for a moment.

Don't kid yourself that USA Healthcare is all that great for many citizens; meaning the ones who work at Burger King, because the folks who have excellent health care are the same a-- h---s who outsourced all the decent-paying industrial jobs, so Wal-Mart could succeed so well selling the outsourced goods.

Moby Nick

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Kinda like the deficit is caused by defense spending, except for the fact it's not?

Here's a couple of paragraphs of HATE for you, Brian.

All spending is not equal in the long run.
In economics military spending is of limited benefit. That is, big ticket items like fighter planes, tanks, big guns, missles, and fleets of transport don't have much of a "multiplier effect". The stuff has a shelf life, becomes outmoded and/or ends up a crumpled hulk.
If you spend those gazillions for machinery that makes things it can go on for decades making a profit and enriching the economy.
At present we are saddled with $120+ million per copy fighterplanes that can do it all but which have no enemies to contend with. The program can't be curtailed because it would exacerbate our already dodgy economy. The same goes for dozens of other big-buck military weapons systems.

I hope there is enough HATE in the above to satisfy your requirements.

[genglandoh]

The number are (In millions)
*****Revenue*******Spending
2007**2,568,001*****2,728,702
2008**2,523,999*****2,982,554
2009**2,104,995*****3,517,681
2010**2,165,119*****3,720,701

Revenue dropped by $-402 Billion and spending increased $991 Billion
Or as a percentage revenue dropped by -15% and spending increased by 36%

So if we went back to 2007 spend levels with todays revenue the numbers would be.
Revenue****Spending****Deficit
2,165,119***2,728,702****-745,129 ($-745 Billion)

$-745 Billion is still big but better then the $-1,555 Billion

This thread was started with the assumption that Tea Bag members would not support Defense Spending cuts.

Well I have not attended any Tea Bag events or donated any money to them but I do agree with reducing spending.

So I for one would be will happy with the following
2011 - reduce spending back to 2007 levels - including defense spending.
2011 - a national discussion of where we should made more spending cuts.
We should look at everything including defense spending.
2012 - start the new spending cuts.

PS I did some research about the US spending levels verses the rest of the world and the pie chart is correct.

[pefjr]

Sooooo... The gummint is responsible for putting people back to work?

I thought you RWWs were all about free enterprise!

When the government interferes with laissez-faire capitalism, they're a bunch of filthy communists, and when they don't, they're not doing their job.

Ura Nidiot.You are too concerned about how you are gonna get your share of the redistribution of the wealth. Go ahead stand in that line, hold that hope in one hand and .....................yadda. I am sure there are quite a few enterprising soldiers that can come home and start their own business, and the majority can go to work in a civilian status rebuilding the infrastructure of this country. Closing borders, Road and bridges, National Parks, Nat'l Forest, schools, etc. I rather spend our money in this country instead of burning it up in Afghanistan. 1/2 to 1/3 would be a good goal for a leader to shoot for. I don't think anyone that has not been in the military or worked for the military can begin to understand the amount of waste I am talking about. One could look at the military as one big welfare system.

Elf, to say that bringing soldiers home will just increase unemployment shows your lack of knowledge, understanding, or thinking. How do you suppose other countries do it? Japan does a good job because of a work ethic and because we are defending them. I said before the health care passed that we will have to pay for the NHC by cutting Defense. We can not have National Health Care and defend the world. But we need NHC and we do not need a military spread out all over this rock wasting dollars faster than the printing.

[elf]

How would you compensate for the increase in population, as well as the arrival of the "Baby Boomers" at retirement age?

Would you resume putting the wars off budget and the attendant borrowing?

How would you propose to finance the shift away from carbon based energy generation? How would you build a new set of industries capable of providing livable salaries for the growing population?

[Milo Christensen]

. . . If you spend those gazillions for machinery that makes things it can go on for decades making a profit and enriching the economy. . . .

We had all that machinery. Past tense. It was crated up and sold overseas. As a result of losing the tools, there aren't enough skilled tool and die makers left in America to use the machines (made in Japan and Korea, now) that make the machines that make things. The machine tools and machine builders are gone. Neither of them are coming back.

[genglandoh]

How would you compensate for the increase in population, as well as the arrival of the "Baby Boomers" at retirement age?

Would you resume putting the wars off budget and the attendant borrowing?

How would you propose to finance the shift away from carbon based energy generation? How would you build a new set of industries capable of providing livable salaries for the growing population?

These are all good questions and should be part of the national discussion on spending cuts.

My thoughts are
1. The population growth in the US is about 1% so this is not a big issue.
2. Nothing should be off budget.
3. I do not not believe the government is responsible for deciding what type of jobs we should have. So I would not support the government doing this.

Let me explain a little more.
I believe the government should support the free market and keep an even playing field for free and fair competition. This way the customer is king and jobs will be created giving customers what they want.

So the why did the Government
1. allow banks to become "too big to fail"
2. allow Exxon and Mobil merge in 1999 (Big oil getting bigger)
3. allow BP and Amoco merge in 1998 (Big oil getting bigger)
4. Create Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae(fooling around in the mortgage market)

We need to give the Power to the People not to the Government.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

This thread was started with the assumption that Tea Bag members would not support Defense Spending cuts.

Well I have not attended any Tea Bag events or donated any money to them but I do agree with reducing spending.

So I for one would be will happy with the following
2011 - reduce spending back to 2007 levels - including defense spending.
2011 - a national discussion of where we should made more spending cuts.
We should look at everything including defense spending.
2012 - start the new spending cuts.

PS I did some research about the US spending levels verses the rest of the world and the pie chart is correct.

If you have been around for the previous few years you should be aware how buzzwords like "death panels" can become the controlling message. Can you imagine the defense minded folks avoiding the use of the phrase "starving the troops"? As long as we have an army in the field the military budget will be hard to limit. And in this depressed economy throwing thousands of defence related workers out on the street will only make things worse in the short term.
So you can be for whatever policy you like but it's just an irrational wish list unless you come up with a scenerio as to how to do it.
And, remember, Ohio has already taken a lot of bad economic hits. No matter what Gov. Kasich says his plans will only work if he applies painful remedies to his constituants. An unwise federal spending limit could make it worse yet. Are you OK with that?

[elf]

These are all good questions and should be part of the national discussion on spending cuts.

My thoughts are
1. The population growth in the US is about 1% so this is not a big issue.
2. Nothing should be off budget.
3. I do not not believe the government is responsible for deciding what type of jobs we should have. So I would not support the government doing this.

Let me explain a little more.
I believe the government should support the free market and keep an even playing field for free and fair competition. This way the customer is king and jobs will be created giving customers what they want.

So the why did the Government
1. allow banks to become "too big to fail"
2. allow Exxon and Mobil merge in 1999 (Big oil getting bigger)
3. allow BP and Amoco merge in 1998 (Big oil getting bigger)
4. Create Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae(fooling around in the mortgage market)

We need to give the Power to the People not to the Government.

So you think the only important thing that the economy should do is provide stuff customers want? So people throughout the country clearly want to eat whatever pleases them, spend most of their time staring at sports and movies on TV, drive everywhere in large inefficient cars, leave the lights on and heat up whether they need it or not, ride their jetskis and snowmobiles wherever they please and put whatever trash they create out the door for someone else to deal with.

How do you propose to deal with the impacts of providing for these sorts of desires? Do you recognize the destructive component of these sorts of wants, or are you unconcerned about the impacts.

[oznabrag]

You are too concerned about how you are gonna get your share of the redistribution of the wealth. Go ahead stand in that line, hold that hope in one hand and .....................yadda. I am sure there are quite a few enterprising soldiers that can come home and start their own business, and the majority can go to work in a civilian status rebuilding the infrastructure of this country. Closing borders, Road and bridges, National Parks, Nat'l Forest, schools, etc. I rather spend our money in this country instead of burning it up in Afghanistan. 1/2 to 1/3 would be a good goal for a leader to shoot for. I don't think anyone that has not been in the military or worked for the military can begin to understand the amount of waste I am talking about. One could look at the military as one big welfare system.

Elf, to say that bringing soldiers home will just increase unemployment shows your lack of knowledge, understanding, or thinking. How do you suppose other countries do it? Japan does a good job because of a work ethic and because we are defending them. I said before the health care passed that we will have to pay for the NHC by cutting Defense. We can not have National Health Care and defend the world. But we need NHC and we do not need a military spread out all over this rock wasting dollars faster than the printing.

You have no idea what I want. You're just slinging poop like an angry chimpanzee.

As to 'redistribution of wealth', that process has been going on for decades, now, and the wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to the uber-rich.

Ura Nidiot AGAIN!

[Captain Blight]

It was below cheap..it was a lie. For someone who trumpets his mastery of words, he apparently doesn't know the meaning of the word 'mercenary.'
Not according to the Geneva Convention:


A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).

By that definition, Brian is a mercenary. So BIOYA.

[pefjr]

You have no idea what I want. You're just slinging poop like an angry chimpanzee.

As to 'redistribution of wealth', that process has been going on for decades, now, and the wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to the uber-rich.

Ura Nidiot AGAIN!Don't bother with trying to understand any societal problem of any size, three horses, just sit back and ad hom. I'll put some musical notes to it and you can just sing your blues away. We will call it "The Redistribution Blues". We can also start looking for another human race for you to belong to, since you are so miserably unhappy in this one.

[genglandoh]

So you think the only important thing that the economy should do is provide stuff customers want? So people throughout the country clearly want to eat whatever pleases them, spend most of their time staring at sports and movies on TV, drive everywhere in large inefficient cars, leave the lights on and heat up whether they need it or not, ride their jetskis and snowmobiles wherever they please and put whatever trash they create out the door for someone else to deal with.

How do you propose to deal with the impacts of providing for these sorts of desires? Do you recognize the destructive component of these sorts of wants, or are you unconcerned about the impacts.

Basically I trust people to spend their money wisely. It does not mean I would spend my money the same way. Everyone has different needs and desires. It is not the governments responsibility to decide want people can or can not spend their money on.

[oznabrag]

Don't bother with trying to understand any societal problem of any size, three horses, just sit back and ad hom. I'll put some musical notes to it and you can just sing your blues away. We will call it "The Redistribution Blues". We can also start looking for another human race for you to belong to, since you so miserably unhappy in this one.

LOL! Don't try to reply to any of my posts, Ura, as anything beyond flinging poop is beyond your intellectual capacity, and your attempts merely expose you for the imbecile you really are.

In fact, you're so stupid that you don't have the self-awareness even to be embarrassed!

[genglandoh]

If you have been around for the previous few years you should be aware how buzzwords like "death panels" can become the controlling message. Can you imagine the defense minded folks avoiding the use of the phrase "starving the troops"? As long as we have an army in the field the military budget will be hard to limit. And in this depressed economy throwing thousands of defence related workers out on the street will only make things worse in the short term.
So you can be for whatever policy you like but it's just an irrational wish list unless you come up with a scenerio as to how to do it.
And, remember, Ohio has already taken a lot of bad economic hits. No matter what Gov. Kasich says his plans will only work if he applies painful remedies to his constituants. An unwise federal spending limit could make it worse yet. Are you OK with that?

I know this will be hard but we are in a situation were we need to have some hard discussions and make some hard discussions.

If the current politicians are not willing to face the problems then we need to vote in people who will.

So what do you think we need to do?

PS I sail out of Whiskey Island Marina near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River.

[pefjr]

LOL! Don't try to reply to any of my posts, Ura, as anything beyond flinging poop is beyond your intellectual capacity, and your attempts merely expose you for the imbecile you really are.

In fact, you're so stupid that you don't have the self-awareness even to be embarrassed!I'll have to improve on those lyrics. You'll never make it as a song writer.

[oznabrag]

I'll have to improve on those lyrics. You'll never make it as a song writer.

Whassamatta, Ura?

Are you so addled that all you can come up with is poop-flinging non-sequiturs?

Sure looks that way!

[pefjr]

Whassamatta, Ura?

Are you so addled that all you can come up with is poop-flinging non-sequiturs?

Sure looks that way!Keep crying but don't preasure me, I want this song to make the WBF hit parade and WF, and MMike are some mighty tough competition.

[Milo Christensen]

How many little pi$$ing matches are going on here? Any body keeping score? Got a game summary? Where are we at in this little game, halftime and ready to come out pi$$ing harder and longer or is it winding down?

[BrianW]

Not according to the Geneva Convention:


mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party"

By that definition, Brian is a mercenary. So BIOYA.

Why didn't you quote all of the Convention...


The legal status of civilian contractors depends upon the nature of their work and their nationalities with
respect to that of the combatants. If they have not "in fact, taken a direct part in the hostilities" (APGC77 Art 47.b), Ithey are not mercenaries but civilians who have non-combat support roles and are entitled to protection under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII 4.1.4).

Stick to your subject matter expertise... Whatever that may be.

[BrianW]

Here's a couple of paragraphs of HATE for you, Brian.

All spending is not equal in the long run...

I hope there is enough HATE in the above to satisfy your requirements.

Didn't quote the whole thing, no need to take up space.

There was no hate in that quote. You really are confused about hating, and posting bits of normal information.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I know this will be hard but we are in a situation were we need to have some hard discussions and make some hard discussions.

If the current politicians are not willing to face the problems then we need to vote in people who will.

So what do you think we need to do?



PS I sail out of Whiskey Island Marina near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River.


I'm of the opinion that the federal government is the only institution potent enough to nurse our ailing economy back to health. All that "starve the beast" rhetoric coming from the Tea Party and others on the Right scares the hell out of me. And it stinks of surrender to the monied interests who can easily weather the storm.
I sail off the beach, such as it is, on Whiskey Island. I'm easy to identify. I sail the boat in my avatar. The crew is never more than one because that's all the room there is. The power boaters who nail their engines at the mouth of the marina bounce the hell out of me but I haven't been doused yet.

[genglandoh]

I'm of the opinion that the federal government is the only institution potent enough to nurse our ailing economy back to health. All that "starve the beast" rhetoric coming from the Tea Party and others on the Right scares the hell out of me. And it stinks of surrender to the monied interests who can easily weather the storm.
I sail off the beach, such as it is, on Whiskey Island. I'm easy to identify. I sail the boat in my avatar. The crew is never more than one because that's all the room there is. The power boaters who nail their engines at the mouth of the marina bounce the hell out of me but I haven't been doused yet.

Well I am in the opposite opinion.
Do you think the spending levels can continue?
I believable we have reached the end of big government deficits and if we increase taxes we will destroy the US economy. So the only solution (as I see it ) is to cut spending and the first step of rolling back spending just 3 years should not be that painful.

PS I own a Kingfisher20 British Twin Keel sailboat. It is a fun boat to sail in 20-30 MPH winds, if you are interested you can come along for a sail this summer. you can read a sailing review about the boat at http://www.sailnet.com/boatchk/showproduct.php?product=1051&sort=2&cat=346&page=1

[Donn]

PS I own a Kingfisher20 British Twin Keel sailboat. It is a fun boat to sail in 20-30 MPH winds, if you are interested you can come along for a sail this summer. you can read a sailing review about the boat at http://www.sailnet.com/boatchk/showproduct.php?product=1051&sort=2&cat=346&page=1

I have a Signet 20, also a twin-keeled British sailboat:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/donnwest/misc/misc052204002-1.jpg

It's sitting in the canal, patiently waiting for me to gut it and turn it into an outboard workboat.

[S.V. Airlie]

How many little pi$$ing matches are going on here? Any body keeping score? Got a game summary? Where are we at in this little game, halftime and ready to come out pi$$ing harder and longer or is it winding down?

Keeping score of those that don't have spats is easier.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Well I am in the opposite opinion.
Do you think the spending levels can continue?
I believable we have reached the end of big government deficits and if we increase taxes we will destroy the US economy. So the only solution (as I see it ) is to cut spending and the first step of rolling back spending just 3 years should not be that painful.

PS I own a Kingfisher20 British Twin Keel sailboat. It is a fun boat to sail in 20-30 MPH winds, if you are interested you can come along for a sail this summer. you can read a sailing review about the boat at http://www.sailnet.com/boatchk/showproduct.php?product=1051&sort=2&cat=346&page=1

It's not a case of all or nothing. There is the possibility of improving the economy and eventually increasing the tax take. But because of frivalous tax cuts the tax take will never get to a place were even reduced spending is sustainable. We have to be willing to tax ourselves more heavily if we want the goodies. Asking the wealthy to pay 4% more may lessen what goes into their offshore bank accounts but that's about all.
The 1960s were a time of economic boom even tho' the corporate tax rate was about 50% and tax rates for the wealthy were exceedingly high too.

[genglandoh]

There have been a few post talking about Tax cuts.

Please clarify what tax cuts are you talking about?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

There have been a few post talking about Tax cuts.

Please clarify what tax cuts are you talking about?

The two that were extended last week. The Obama administration proposed raising the upper income bracket from 35% to 39%. But there are others like the goodie that lets hedge fund managers get off with paying only 15% that have prooven to be just as untouchable.

[genglandoh]

The two that were extended last week. The Obama administration proposed raising the upper income bracket from 35% to 39%. But there are others like the goodie that lets hedge fund managers get off with paying only 15% that have prooven to be just as untouchable.

Thanks Chuck.
I thought you were talking about the recent tax cut but I was not sure if I missed a tax cut.

The issue we are talking about is how the budget deficit increased almost 10 times from -160 billion in 2007 to -1555 Billion in 2010. During that time spending increased 991 Billion and revenue dropped -402 billion.

But during this time there was no tax cuts so I do not understand why you think tax cuts caused the deficit.

[Tylerdurden]

I didn't miss you point. You want to punish people you don't like. I was making actual statements, not angry rhetoric.








They want others to punish people they don't like. To a man none of them can do it themselves Brian. It's the liberal way dontcha know.

[McMike]

TD, Brian. Why is it punishing? I only want to punish those who broke the law. As for those who have been giving themselves raises over the past 40 years . . . . Talk about wealth redistribution.


In 1970, CEO salary and bonus packages were typically about $700,000 - 25 times the average production worker salary; by 2000, CEO salaries had jumped to almost $2.2 million on average, 90 times the average salary of a worker, according to a 2004 study on CEO pay by Kevin J. Murphy and Jan Zabojnik. Toss in stock options and other benefits, and the salary of a CEO is nearly 500 times the average worker salary, the study says.

For the rest of us:

Median income in 1973 was $37,700 (adjusted to 2003 levels). Median income in 2003 was $43,318.

CPI in 1973 was 42.6 and CPI for 2003 was 181.7.

You do the math. The rich have been getting huge raises while the rest of us pay 4 times what we paid for goods in 1973 and the rest of us have only seen a 13% raise in that same time. Again, do the math, who seems to hate who? Who has been "redistributing" wealth for the past 30 years? Why shouldn't I be angry? Why aren't you angry?